Skip to main content
8:30 pm
today? >> guest: no institution is impervious to the need of reform, and i think the fcc is probably no different. >> host: senator gordon smith, president and ceo of the national association of broadcasters, paul kirby, senior ed dore at telecommunication reports. 24 -- this was the communicators.
8:31 pm
>> news corporation chairman and ceo rupert mudoch testified what he knew about phone hacking.
8:32 pm
he was joined by his son, james, who heads news international, his u.k. operation, and rebecca brooks, the former chief executive of news international. this hearing is a little more than four hours. [inaudible conversations] >> our understanding was that we would be afforded the opportunity to make an opening statement. we think, and we prepare it on that basis, and we would like the opportunity to make that statement. would you allow us? >> the committee discussed this earlier. we feel we have a lot of questions, and we wish all you have to say comes out in the
8:33 pm
course of questioning. if you feel that's not the case, then you can make a statement at the end. excuse me, could owe not have that, please? >> in this case, we would like to submit the statement in writing if that pleases you. >> that would be perfectly accept l. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> can we please remove those people holding up the signs. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> after that brief interruption, we will begin. good afternoon, everybody.
8:34 pm
this is a special meeting of the elect committee, a follow-up to the inquiry which the committee held in 2009 into privacy and libel during which we took evidence on the extent of phone hacking which had taken plaices in news of the world. in our reports last year, we stated that we thought it was inconceivable that only one reporter had been involved. in the last ten weeks, it's emerged that not only evidence has come out, which i think has been vindicated the conclusion, but also abuses have been revealed which have angered and shocked the entire country. it's also true the parliament has been misled. we are very conscious upon the committee that there's an ongoing police investigation and possible criminal proceedings to follow, and this committee would not wish to jeopardize that; however, we are encouraged by the statements that have been made by all the witnesses this afternoon that they wish to
8:35 pm
cooperate with the committee and help us to establish the truth, so as the first witnesses this afternoon, can i welcome the chairman and chief executive officer of news corp., rupert mudoch and the chief executive for news international, james mudoch. thank you for making yourselves available. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're more than prepared to. >> thank you. perhaps i might start with mr. james murdoch. you made a statement on the 7th of july in which you stated that the paper had made statements to parliament without being in the full possession of the facts, and that was wrong. you essentially admitted the parliament had been misled in what we were told. can you tell us to what extent we were misled and when you became aware of that? >> mr. chairman, thank you very much, and i'd like to say as well how sorry i am and how sorry we are to particularly the
8:36 pm
victims of illegal voice mail interceptions and their families. it's the matter of great regret of mine, my father's, and everyone at news corporation and these are standards, these actions do not live up to the standards that our company aspires to everywhere around the world, and it's our determination to both put things right, make sure these things don't happen again, and to be the company that i know we've always aspired to be. as for my comments, mr. chairman, in my statement, which i believe was around the closure of the news of the world newspaper -- >> before you get to that, i want to say one sentence. this is the most humble day of my life. >> thank you. >> the statement around the closure of the news of the world newspaper, where i stated that we -- the company had not been
8:37 pm
in full possession of the facts when certain statements were made to this committee was referring to the e jeer gens of new facts -- emergence of new facts that largely came about in 2010 as the due process as a number of civil trials reached their point where document disclosure and evidence disclosure made it apparent to the company and to myself at that time that, indeed, there was reason to believe that potentially more people had been involved in news of the world illegal voice mail interceptions from before. that was new evidence or new information at the time that post dated the 2009 hearings, and that is what i was referring to. subsequent to our discovery in the information at the end of a civil trial in january 2010, i believe service the sienna miller case, the company
8:38 pm
immediately alerted individuals involved, alerted the police, and we started on that basis, the investigation that is now underway, and since then, the company has admitted liability to victims of illegal voice mail interceptions, has apologized unreservedly, which i repeat today to those victim, and the company set up a compensation to a higher court judge to deal with legitimate claims coming from victims coming from those terrible incidents of voice mail interception, and that was taken when new evidence o merged -- emerged. it was those facts at that point, still in the future, and it was in the due process of that civil trial, civil
8:39 pm
litigation process that that evidence really emerged for us, and we acted and the company acted as swiftly and transparently as possible. >> when this committee took evidence in 2009, we heard from the managing editor, legal manager of news international top crime, and news of the world editor, the former editor, andy corson, and the chairman of news international, all of them told us that there had been a thorough investigation, no evidence had been found that anybody else was involved. clearly, that's not correct. were any of them lying to this committee? >> the -- mr. chairman, the company relieded -- relied on three things for a period of time up until the new evidence emerged. the company relied on a police
8:40 pm
investigation in 2007, and this was before we went back to the area, this is before i was involved. i became back involved in news corporation and news international at the end of 2007. in the 2007 period, there was a police investigation, successful prosecutions were brought against two individuals, and the editor of the news of the world resigned, and the company relied on the police having closed the investigation and repeated assertions there was no new evidence for them to reopen the investigation. the company relied on the pcc, which had had a report that had said there was nothing more to this at the time, and the company relied on the legal opinion of outside council that was brought in related to those matters who with respect to their review said there was no
8:41 pm
opinion of clear conditional legality other than the two individuals involved before, and the company relied on those facts and for the company in 2008 and 2009, it was not -- it was not clear that there was a reason to believe that those matters were anything other than settling those matters in the past. >> is it your testimony to this committee, those who gave up evidence in 2009, none of them knew, at that time, what had been going on? >> i do not have direct knowledge of what they knew and what time, but i can tell you that the critical new facts and the company saw them really emerge in the production of documentary information or evidence in the civil trials at the end of 2010, and the duration from 2008 until -- or 2007 until the end the 2010, and the length of time it took for
8:42 pm
that to become clear and for the real evidence to be there is a matter of deep frustration. mine, i have to tell you, i know and i sympathize with the frustration of this committee, and it's a matter of real regret that the facts could not emerge and could not be gotten to my understanding faster. >> well, you made clear that it is the case that the information we were given was incorrect. how -- have you established who, as well as clyde goodman, was goffed in phone hack -- involved in phone hacking. >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman, can you repeat that? >> who was involved in the phone hacking at news of the world? >> i think you made it clear, mr. chairman, there's been a number of arrests of former news of the world employees. these are matters for current criminal investigations, and i think it's understandably difficult for me to comment in
8:43 pm
particular around some of the those individuals. >> have you carried out your own investigation since the discovery of this information to find out the extent of involvement in phone hacking in the news of the world? >> we have established -- we have established 5 group in the company cooperating very closely with the police on their investigation. their investigation is broad with respect to journalistic practices and in particular journalist tick practices at news of the world, and the policy and direction the company has given them is to cooperate fully and transparently with the police, so provide information in evidence that the company believes is relevant to those investigations, sometimes proactively, sometimes in response to those questions, and, again, i think the very fact that the provision of the new information to the police in the first place when there was no police investigation ongoing
8:44 pm
that then led to, in part, the reopening or this new investigation being established. i hope it can be testament to some proactive action and transparency with respect to getting to the right place in terms of finding out the facts of what happened, understanding all of the allegations that are being -- that are coming in, and moving forward to aid the police in the successful completion of the important and serious work that they are doing. >> okay. the departure from your company in the recent few days of -- [inaudible] it's not because any of them have knowledge of phone hacking. >> there is -- i have no knowledge, and there is no evidence that i'm aware of that mrs. brooks or mr. henson or any
8:45 pm
of those executives had knowledge of that, and assertions, mrs. brooks and her knowledge of things to me has been clear, and nonetheless, those resignations have been accepted but it's important on the basis there's no evidence today that i have seen or that i have any knowledge of that there was in impropriety by them. >> you repeatedly stated that news corporation has a zero tolerance of wrong doing by employees; is that right? >> yes. >> in october 2010, did you still believe it to be true when you made your speech and you said, "let me be clear. we will vigorously pursue the truth, and we will not tolerate wrong doing."
8:46 pm
>> yes. >> if you were not lying then, somebody lied to you. who was it? >> i don't know. that is what the police are investigating, and we are helping them with. >> you acknowledge you were misled? >> clearly. >> can i take you back to 2003? are you aware that in march of that year, rebecca brooks gave evidence to this committee admitting paying police? >> i am now aware of that. i was not aware at the time. also aware that she amended that very quickly afterwards. >> i think she amended it seven or eight years afterwards. >> sorry. >> did you or anyone else at your organization investigate this at the time? >> no. >> can you explain why? >> i didn't know of it. i'm sorry, but i'm going to say
8:47 pm
something, and this is not an excuse, maybe it's an explanation. the news of the world is less than 1% of our company. i employee 53,000 people around the world. we great and ethical and distinguished people, professionals, and perhaps i'm -- i'm sad watching and appointing people whom i trust to run those divisions. >> i do accept you have many distinguished people who work for your company. you ultimately are responsible for the corporate governance of news corporation, so what i'm trying to establish is who knew about wrong doing, and what was involved at the time. if i can take you forward to 2006, when clyde goodman was arrested and suns e-subs --
8:48 pm
subsequently convicted of intercepting voice mails, were you aware of that? >> when they were convicted. >> what did news international go prior to to the arrest to get to the facts? >> we worked with the police on further investigation, and e -- we appointed to investigate it further. >> let me finish the line of questioning, and i'll come to you. what did you personally do to investigate that after mr. goodman went to prison? you were obviously concerned about it. >> i spoke to him. he told me about it. >> okay. can i ask you 2008, another two
8:49 pm
years. why did you not dismiss news of the world chief report following the mosley case. >> i had never heard of it. >> okay. despite the judge making clear that phil set out to -- [inaudible] >> i didn't hear that. >> a church made it clear that they sent out blackmail to two of the women involved in the case. >> that's the first i heard of that. >> none of your u.k. staff through the serious wrong doing even though the case received widespread media attention. >> maybe he can answer that in more detail. >> i'll come to your son in a minute. despite the blackmail resulting 234 a 40 year prison sentence, nobody in your u.k. company brought this fact to your attention? >> the blackmail charge, no. >> do you think that might be because they knew you would think nothing of it?
8:50 pm
>> no. i can't answer. i don't know. >> do you agree with mr. justice eddy saying the lack of action discloses a remarkable state of affairs at news international? >> no. >> mr. murdoch, a judge found a chief reporter guilty of blackmail. it was widely reported. he said it was a remarkable -- >> [inaudible] >> it was a civil case. were you aware that news international commissioned an investigation and national e-mails? were you aware that news international commissioned an investigation into news international e-mails by the solicitors firm? >> yes. i didn't apply them, but i was told of it happening. >> you claimed in a "wall street
8:51 pm
journal" that they made a major mistake. can i ask what mistake you were referring to? >> i think maybe that's a question, again, for james, but there was certainly -- well, we examined it, re-examined that, we found things which we immediately went to counsel with to get advice on how to present it to the police. >> in their written response to this committee's questions, are you aware that news international stated that both john chapman and daniel cloke reviewed these before forwarding them? >> no. >> so nobody in the company told you that some of your executives had reviewed the e-mails --
8:52 pm
>> i thought -- i was under the understanding that everything had been sent to them. >> okay. you are aware that lewd mcdonald qc reviewed the e-mails again on behalf of the international, are you not? >> yes. >> you're aware that he stated he found out -- >> an aid reported the whole bullet. >> he did? >> to news corporation. >> you're aware he stated to the board that he found evidence of indirect hacking breaches national security and then evidence of serious crimes in the firm? >> he did, indeed. >> i can address these in details if you would allow me. >> i'll come to you, but it's your father who is responsible. i'd like to ask what he knew, but i will come back to you. who was aware of the findings at news international?
8:53 pm
>> went to the senior officials of news corporation. certainly, the top legal officer. >> tom crown or -- >> no. >> were you -- >> they were not the top legal officers. >> who were the top legal officers? >> chapman was the leader at international, and mr. crone was the head of legal affairs at news group newspapers. >> and were you informed about the findings by your son or by rebecca brooks? >> i forget. i suspect it was my son. i was in contact with them both. >> okay. when were you informed about the payments made to gordon taylor and max clifford?
8:54 pm
>> no. >> you were not nmpled? -- informed? >> no. >> at no point you were told they were made payments? >> not that i heard, sir. >> okay. you never informed the chief executive at news corporation -- >> can i answer the questions now? >> i want you to tell me if you informed your father that you authorized payments to gordon taylor as a result of him being a victim of a crime? >> the settlement with mr. taylor and happy to address that matter in some detail if you'd like. my father became aware after the settlement was made in 2009, i believe after the confidential settlement had become public and the newspaper reported on the out of court settlement afterwards, but please understand that the settlement they out of court, and out of court settlement of the civil claim of that nature and with
8:55 pm
that -- of that quantum is something that normally in a company our size, the responsible executives in the territory of the country would be authorized to make, and that's the way the company function # and below approval thresholds to go to my father. >> there are other questions asking specific questions about the issue. i'll go back to your father, if i can. mr. murdoch, at what point do you find out criminality was endeemic at -- endemic at news of the world? >> "endemic" is a very wide ranging word, and i also had to be careful not to prejudice the cause of justice that is taking place now.
8:56 pm
that has been disclosed. i became aware as it became apparent. there were those two, and then i was absolutely appalled when i heard of the case, early two weeks ago, eight days before i saw him, who -- [inaudible] >> did you read the last report into the matter referring to the collective amnesia of those who gave evidence to our committee? >> i have not heard that, but -- >> nobody -- >> i don't know the particular charges. >> parliamentary inquiry found your senior execkives in the -- executives in the u.k. guilty of amnesia, and it was never brought to your attention. i don't know why you think
8:57 pm
that's not very serious. >> you're not saying amnesia. you're really saying lies. >> well, we find your a bit guilty of collective am amnesia. i would have thought someone would have liked to bring that to your attention, that it would concern you. did they forget? >> no, no. >> okay. what has been obvious to most of the observers from the summer of 2009 that phone hacking was widespread. you knew for sure in january of this year that the one rogue reporter line was false; is that right? >> i forget the date. >> why was edmondson the only one to leave news of the world last january? >> mr. watson, we have given all our files and all our knowledge
8:58 pm
and everything to the police. they have not given us the diaries, so we do not know what was in there, and that there was a page which appeared to be addressed to him. again, that's my son's -- >> mr. chairman, perhaps it would be helpful of the committee if you'd like to go through any of the particular detail around why the decisions were made by the management team at news international and the precise chronology. it would be more helpful, perhaps, if i can answer those questions as the chief executive of the regional businesses across europe. i have somewhat more proximity to it. >> i understand the detail points. >> just to clarify. > your father is responsible for the serious wrong doing, and it's revealing in itself what he doesn't know and what executive
8:59 pm
chose not to tell him, so with respect to you, i will pursue my line of questioning and come back to you later. mr. murdoch, why was no one fired in april when news international finally admitted that news of the world had been engaged in criminal inception of voice mails? >> it was not our job to get in the course of justice. it was up to the police to bring those charges and carry out their investigation, which we were 100% cooperating with. >> but do you, in april, the company admitted liability for phone hacking and nobody took responsibility for it then. >> no one was fired. the company admitted they were involved in criminal wrong doing, and no one was firedded. why was that? >> there were people in the company, apparently were guilty, and we have to fine them and
9:00 pm
deal with them appropriately. >> mr. watson, to clarify, most of the individuals involved or implicated there have long since left the company. some that were still there, you mentioned one, exited the business as soon as evidence of wrong doing was found, and the fund was set up in cooperation with the police to aid them with any of the those things that they wanted to do, but many of the individuals that were potentially implicated in the civil litigations and potentially in the criminal matters already left the building, and they were not in the news of the world at this time, and current news of the world, our news of the world executives and journalists at the time, many of whom were not there in 2006 and 2007, so it was, some of them had already left. ..
9:01 pm
in what had happened. people white to you and their readers. we had broken our trust with our readers.
9:02 pm
but the important point was the readers. >> were you aware there was other surveillance used by private investigators used by news international? >> i was informed of illicit surveillance, computer hacking. i think all organizations had used private detectives and do so in their investigations from time to time. i don't think he illegally. >> if it could be shown to you the private investigators working for the newspapers and news international on the computer hacking would you introduce another investigation? >> we would certainly work with them and if they want to do it, they would do it. >> finally can i ask you when did you first meet mr. alex
9:03 pm
geringer? >> he worked for the companies for 25 years. >> i don't remember meeting him. i don't have any memory. >> okay. thank you. >> can i ask you a number of short questions? why did you answer number ten with the foreign minister? >> because i was asked to. >> you were asked to go to the back door of number ten? >> yes. to avoid photographers in the front. >> the heads of state managed to go in the front door? >> yes. >> and you go in the back door?
9:04 pm
>> yes. the church of the prime minister worked on these things. >> so it was under the prime minister's instructions you go in the back door? >> i was asked to come in through the back door. >> there is no direct knowledge of the arrangement being made for his exit from a particular building to start with. >> have you ever imposed any issues? >> i was just following the last general. >> i was invited to have a cup of tea to be thanked for the support by mr. cameron. no other conversation took place. >> and that's the one you went in through the back door? >> yes. i had by mr. brown and many
9:05 pm
times. >> through the backdoor? >> yes. [laughter] and my family who went there many times. >> were there any conditions that you indicate before giving them the support of your newspapers? >> never guaranteed any other support of newspapers. we had been supporting the government and we changed and supported the labor party years ago with the direct loss of 200,000 circulation. >> did you ever report any preconditions, no preconditions what so ever? >> no, the only conversations i had with them or about europe.
9:06 pm
>> mr. blair what did you do after the election? >> that was something mr. cameron and arranged. >> can i also ask you if it was understood that the fbi are investigating the commission investigation into these allegations? >> we have seen no evidence of that at all and as far as we know. >> but they do? >> they would be treated exactly the same way as they do here and i can't believe it happened to anyone in american whether the news of the world, i don't know. >> i will come back to you but
9:07 pm
are there any whatsoever you commission the investigation? >> absolutely. >> you must be qualified on the scandal and the fact that its cost you the transaction that led to the news of the world? >> a lot had a different agenda and trying to build this hysteria. all of our competitors in this country formally announced. >> [inaudible] >> no, i think if a lot and practical to go ahead. >> we have been very clear that
9:08 pm
serious allegations of wrongdoing have been leveled about the news of the world and we believe that the news of the world -- the actions of some reporters and some people some years ago have fundamentally tarnished the trust of the news of the world and its readers and this is a matter not a huge and sincere regret of mine and my father's and the companies. the company's priority very much so is to restore that trust, is to operate in the right way, is to make sure that the company can be the company that it has always aspired to become and the removal of the offer to make the proposal to make an offer to the shareholders who are not news corporation assumes the reflection of that purity of moving forward.
9:09 pm
>> the people who have been the victims of the news of the world on allegations. >> and it is our absolute priority to move those. >> what happened at the news of the world was wrong. the and i have apologized profusely and unreservedly for that and my father has as well. these are very serious matters and we are trying to establish the facts of any new allegations as they come up. we are working closely with the police to find out where the wrongdoing was and to hold people accountable, and i think importantly as well to the victims of illegal voice mail interceptions not just apologize but we have admitted liability, the company has admitted liability and we have set out the appropriate third-party
9:10 pm
compensation to do that. these are all matters that we are fully engaged in. >> do you accept that ultimately you are responsible? >> no. >> you are not responsible? who is responsible? >> the people that i entrusted and maybe the people they trusted. i worked for 52 years and i would trust him with my life. >> are you satisfied that the news corporation companies to inform had their appropriate tax authorities? >> i know nothing about that. >> if people were given money to publish their stories, did you
9:11 pm
notify the appropriate? >> all of our financial affairs are as a public company transparent, audited, the tax jurisdictions all around the world are worked with transparently and thoroughly. it is an important priority for any business and we comply with the law. >> is the also include people in the regular affairs? >> i have no knowledge of separate people undertaking the company in their own tax affairs and their own tax arrangements. i can speak for the company's tax arrangements to the best of my knowledge we are a company that takes tax compliance, regulatory compliance, financial
9:12 pm
and regulatory transparency hugely seriously and it's something that >> you are aware of the situation with who is currently imprisoned. [inaudible] haven't disclosed the internal e-mails of mr. chariton. why is that? >> i don't have the record of much of that. i apologize, but certainly if you have additional questions on that in the future i'm happy to apply for ten answers but i don't have direct knowledge and i'm not in a position to answer those questions. >> just a couple more questions, mr. chairman. can you please confirm or deny whether any news corporation company is the subject of an investigation?
9:13 pm
>> i have no knowledge of that. i have no knowledge of that at this point. >> whether any news corporation company is the subject of investigation by the financial service? >> i don't believe so but not to my knowledge. >> can you confirm or deny whether any news corporation is the subject of an investigation? >> not to my knowledge. we have ongoing dialogue with the subsidiaries here but as far as investigations are concerned, i have no knowledge of one. >> thank you. >> mr. murdoch, you made the recommendation to the news of the world on news corporation. who made the recommendations on the news of the world has seen at the petition made by news corporation? >> it was the result of a discussion between my senior
9:14 pm
executives and we called the board of news corporation to seek their agreement. >> you will base of justice because he felt ashamed. it's not a suggestion was a commercial decision to decide for news of the world? moving on to the financial government arrangement mr. james murdock you suggested earlier that the payments were not notified at the news corps level because of the finance threshold. could you tell us a bit more about that? i understand it took payment can you tell us a that was that financial level managerial decision? >> i'm very happy to discuss and thank you. it's a good question. i am very happy to discuss the matter of mr. taylor. the out-of-court settlement was related to a voice mail interception that had occurred
9:15 pm
previously and was actually one of the counter as i understand of the 2007 trial so it's important to think back to 2008 to understand what we knew then, but i knew then and with the information was in the context. so the underlining interception was not a disputed fact. second, it was the advice further i should say it was the advice and the clear view of the company and that its litigated the company but lose that case that was almost certain to lose that case because the underlying fact was not in dispute. third, the company saw the distinguished outside counsel to understand if the case were litigated and if it were to be lost which is the great likelihood, what the financial quantum would be or what that would cost, without cost the company and advise that with the expenses, legal expenses and
9:16 pm
damages that that would be between 500,000 to a million pounds or their belts. i don't recall the exact number. i think it was 250,000 plus expenses plus litigation costs, something like that. and lastly, this was in the context in the first half of 2008 and this was my first real involvement with any of these issues where there was no reason at a time to believe that the issue of the voice mail interception with anything but a federal matter and i -- that was in the past after the successful prosecution of the two individuals we discussed as well as the resignation of the editor to read so the settlement was made in that context and was within the authorities and owsley understood it of news international to be able to make those out of court settlements in due course without going to
9:17 pm
goebel level of the company. i at the time was the regional head for europe and asia of the news corporation and i directed that it was all right to settle that. it did not get involved in any of the negotiations to berkeley about that settlement, but i do recall in 2008 that those were the things that were known. >> i would just add item of the company a matter of very few weeks. i'd come back to the company at the end of 2007 in the middle of december and this was some time i don't recall the date but the first half of 2008. >> so, given that you were new to the company, but financial payments could other news international people like tom kronor without the course for
9:18 pm
u.s. the german? >> generally speaking, generally speaking the way the company would operate as any company would operate is and in certain financial planner from the perspective to look at a budget which like a house would manage its budget and say how much money to be have to spend and how much money to a particular company or part of the company or department have to spend as long as they stay within those guidelines, as long as they stay within those guidelines they should be empowered to make those judgments to, you know, spend that money and chief near the end they can. i don't have that of my fingers the precise financial of 40 in mat, but i can discuss after the committee hearing with you what exactly you would like to know and we can discuss whether or not it's right to come back to you with that.
9:19 pm
>> what level of financial payout would have taken to require the organization from the lord? >> i think for the full board it is in the millions but i don't know the exact answer to that. >> do you know how much has been paid out to the people authorized by your executives? >> p. doud in what way? >> such as settlements. >> illegal settlements? i do not know the total number. but around the world its customary to reach out of court settlements in civil litigations and civil matters and it's something that rather than go through the lengthy and sometimes expensive litigation process the and the risks that entails it is customary to try to reach an out-of-court settlements in many cases. >> i would just add we have a very strong committee at the news corporation [inaudible]
9:20 pm
and they review all. >> thank you. building on that was it possible to make payments to people if they don't invoice you or they are not employees? how is it possible to transfer cash or other funds to people who don't invoice you or who are not employees of our subsidiaries? >> i don't know the exact arrangement for that. i don't do that myself, but i can tell you how that's done but sometimes in certain instances, you know, it is appropriate for journalists or managers in a certain environment to have the ability to use cash in some instances, but it is customary for those to record those and all of the expenses, cash expenses as well was invoice expenses to be looked at in the
9:21 pm
court. >> said things like petty cash can be a victim. at the moment you don't necessarily -- you just recall the journalists gave it. >> and i don't have a verdict knowledge of all of those arrangements. >> things could be made is it possible to be used in your company parts in cash and bank transfers traveler's checks, vouchers, things for cash? >> i don't have knowledge of that. >> just looking at some of your corporate government page two and page for it talks about directors employees and officers of the corporation acting to the principles set forth including agent supplies and business partners at standards we've never asked a third party to violate these standards can you tell me a little at a specially on the financial side how you as
9:22 pm
an organization try to make that happen? >> how would work is each newspaper has an editor or manager that they have to approve of every reporter. the reporter has no authority to pay money on his own. the managing editor on the budgets and should do so and is directed to do so with propriety. >> do you require your executives to make statements that they have abided with the conduct of and ethics? >> every employee come every colleagues around the world of the news corporation receives the code of conduct pamphlet
9:23 pm
that has some detail in it but is not too much. people read it. with respect to what conduct is required very happy to make available to you. it's about ethical conduct, it's the law, breaking the rules and so on and everyone who becomes an employee is required to do that and our legal counsel internally also conducts workshops around the world with staff from mumbai to manchester around those rules and that code of conduct and it is something we try hard to communicate as quickly as we can to everyone in the business. >> i appreciate mr. murdoch's statements at the beginning been in the media spotlight and perhaps that is appreciated the attention that you've had without wishing to suppress investigative journalism, would
9:24 pm
this make you think again about how you approach your headlines and future that could be people from the hills and 96 are the celebrities or others would you think again about what your headlines are saying? >> i think editors certainly well and i'm not aware of any transgressions. as a matter of taste we have in this country a wonderful variety of voices and they are naturally competitive and i'm sure there are headlines. >> i think it's important to say one of the last thing if you will from all of this for us it
9:25 pm
is that we do need to think as a business as well as an industry in this country more forcefully and thoughtfully about our journalistic aspects, about what exactly the code of conduct should be not just for news international the publishing subsidiary but also for the industry as a whole, and what sort of governments should be around this whole area and we welcomed last week the prime minister's announcement of the judicial then carry into with the journalistic ethics but also the relationships as an understand it with the politicians and i think that is a really good thing for the country and for all of the interested parties to engage in and one of the specific actions the was taken to try to be as proactive as we can around this is we have set up what we call the management and standards committee that is outside of the
9:26 pm
actual management of the publishing company and reports to the independent trucker through the independent director of our global public board precisely to look at this issue around first, the specific issue is how we cooperate with the investigation and deal with allegations of wrongdoing and get to the bottom of it but also, and i think importantly, how we coordinate and cooperate in those and productively engaged in the judicial inquiries and how we start to set a code of conduct and a code of ethics that we think and that it thinks is something that can both be a paragon for all of our newspapers but all of the industry and also something that really has teeth and can hold the company to account and is independently shared the management standards committee that we think it is going to be a much better way to go in the future and we would like over the next six months to a year to
9:27 pm
be judged on the actions the companies take to put that right and to put that in place. >> thank you. >> i would like to say, if i may would be upset about our apologies this country desperately have a competitive press sometimes compared to people i think the better in a strong accord. >> if i can come back to the news will and ask is it your intention to launch? >> there is no -- >> there is no decision on that. >> at the moment there are no plans to have the news
9:28 pm
international title coming out in the tabloid and the market. >> there are no immediate plans for that. >> we talked in the past about moving to the 70 newsrooms with speculations on the reserve. >> i believe all those options open. that is not the company's priority now. in the last week it has come up in the company, but, you know, my father's tradition and my direction is this is not the time to be worrying about that. the company has to move forward on all of these other actions and really get to grips with the facts of these allegations and understanding as fully as we can. >> the trick to keep [inaudible]
9:29 pm
>> you said the company pays out settlements approved by i did not have a complete picture what do you do now we did not know now? >> the new information that emerged that is critical here is the information that came out the ongoing process for the civil litigations in 2010 and at the end of 2010, the presentation of evidence which hadn't been in our possession previously from this civil litigation would widen the circle definitively or made a very apparent or likely that the circle was wider than the two individuals i suppose mr. goodman from previously and was that information to was critical and if i could go back
9:30 pm
to my previous testimony earlier today around the settlement with mr. taylor, the legal settlement is clear it was not in dispute and there was no known fact from the previous trials. the advice was very clear as to what sort of damages can expected to be paid and it was quite clear and quite likely that it litigated it would lose that case and in the contact of none of this other information was a full year before some of the new allegations in the press of rose from afar and there was no reason to believe that the time it was anything the another in the past. so knowing then what i know now, it to negotiate to settle the
9:31 pm
case? i would actually, but i would have coupled with the other actions that we've taken since the new evidence emerged at the end of september, 2010. and that is to immediately go and look at whatever we can find internally around the individuals involved to immediately contact the police about information that may be of great interest to them to put in place a process that took a little while and we did it in the early part of 2011 are not admitting liability to the civil litigants, putting up the process in place to get to the bottom of what legitimate allegations. i apologize unreservedly to the victim's of those illegal voice now intersects which were absolutely inexcusable and having a system of compensation there. so i think if i knew then what we know now to the benefit of
9:32 pm
hindsight we can look at all of these things, but if i knew then what we now it would have taken more action are around that and moved faster to get to the bottom of these obligations. >> what are the news group newspapers? >> i don't recall. i would imagine a was either news international. i think the news group newspapers that we can -- ensure we can provide you with that information. >> speed the advice was as i have described it which is the underlying fact in the case was a previous act that had come up in the trial. >> were you engaged in the criminal packing? >> were you aware the case
9:33 pm
involved in the crown will act? >> the was my understanding the litigation was for damages to the illegal voice mail intercept. >> when did you get this advice? >> this was in the first half of 2008. in 2009 they informed us they informed us to settle the claim both the advice from the company's legal but pfizer's for the solicitors. >> they have done work for us. i don't know which external council the engaged on that. schenectady ratifies whether it was from anyone else? >> no, the advice that i had was oral from mr. miler. >> what advice? >> as i described it. >> and that outside legal advice had been taken with respect to
9:34 pm
the quantum of damages that were affected. the advice was lost. >> the privacy damages by the court remained 50,000 pounds i ron ackley . >> mr. sanders, i did question the amount made but not in relation to the 60,000. if you recall, and i am sure you do, the chronology here, the settlement with respect to the 60,000 pounds again which i believe was mostly the case was after the authorizations that have been after the advice was sought from the senior distinguished outside counsel with respect to the quantum of damages over the respect to pay which and the damages terms was the quarter of a million pounds plus expenses and litigation costs expected to be between 500,000 is my recollection and i think that chronology is important. i think afterwards he would have maybe different information, but
9:35 pm
it wasn't afterwards. it was before. >> when you approve the settlement it didn't have all the facts. what do you know now that you didn't know then? >> as i testified and respectfully mr. chairman, the key facts, the key evidence that came to the light at 2010 as the link the due process of the civil litigation involving these matters took their course it is that process that unearthed the key evidence there and it was really only after that even that the police, that any said they should restore the investigation. as soon as we had that new information at the end of 2010, which indicated to us that there was a wide involvement. we acted on it immediately. >> couldn't leave after 26 years
9:36 pm
of service? >> last year the news of the world, two weeks ago i guess the news of the world published he was very involved with the matters of the years and the company believed and the management of the company believed that it was time. i was not involved in this direct discussions with mr. krone, and i can't comment on their nature of the content. i don't have knowledge of them. >> a final question, the newspaper since been carried the story last week that news international subsidized the wages for the employee. can you shed light on that? >> i have no knowledge of any wages after he left the company's employment. >> finally, are you familiar with the term willful blindness? >> mr. sanders, would you care to elaborate?
9:37 pm
>> it cannot in the scandal and the legal term it states it has knowledge you could have and should have had that chose not to have. >> mr. sanders, you have a question? spaight whether you were aware. >> i'm not aware of that particular phrase. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we were not ever. >> thank you. the chairman says when we have our inquiry in 2009 the evidence given by the news international executives was rather helpless. they said was a game plan. but they didn't know anything. they couldn't remember it.
9:38 pm
so we can get on a reasonable funding what sort of coaching you had today and whose advise you on how to handle them on what advice. with respect to de after scheduling this disappearance, we took advice around with the context of the setting and it is my first time and my father's i think first time in a committee meeting like this mostly logistics and what sort of presence but we were advised fundamentally to tell the truth, and to come and be as open and transparent as possible, and that is my and my father's intent and intention and we hope we can show you that that is what is happening.
9:39 pm
>> we have a rather handoff approach the point you made was that the news of the world was less than 1% of the entire worldwide business and wouldn't be expected to know the ins and outs of what was going on. can you give an illustration of how many types, how often you would speak to the editors of your newspapers, how often you speak to the editor and to the news of a world. >> very seldom. sometimes i would bring the editor of the news of the world but it was just to keep in touch. the editor of the sunday times nearly every sunday. not to influence what he has to say at all and any remarks made
9:40 pm
about the inquiry. and i'm not really in touch. i indicated that i've spent in the area most is with the editor of "the wall street journal" and to say that we are hands off it is wrong. i cannot tell you the multitude of issues that i have to handle every day. news of the world may be because of this in the general frame of the campaign, and a lot of other things, too. >> if i can help you out here, if some one told me that you to speak to the editors at least
9:41 pm
daily or twice a day would you recognize that description or would that be -- >> no. >> you wouldn't traditionally have spoken to the editors? >> no. i would like to. >> would be to the news of the world not to influence to understand that. i'm intrigued how these conversations go because i would have imagined it would go along the lines of the editor of the news of the world anything to report. anything interesting going on and the editor of the news of the world says it sounded weak. we pay the 600,000 pounds. >> surely in your conversations with the editor of the news of the world something as big as
9:42 pm
that paying someone a million pounds, 700,000 pounds, surely you would expect the of the charter of the news of the world to drop into the conversation at some point. you wouldn't expect them to say that? >> no. i would have called him at least once a month i guess. >> if they were not on the agenda of what to say? what sort of response? >> a great story exposing x or y say nothing unprofessional. you might refer to the fact hominy [inaudible] >> but he wouldn't tell you how many.
9:43 pm
[inaudible] james, would you acknowledge in your view? >> i can't speak to the arrangements why don't have direct knowledge of how i was involved in those pieces and that is with respect to the tayler piece, i made a judgment given the advice of counsel, given the advice by the executives involved that -- and going back and looking at what we knew in 2008 and looking at that advice and remembering that advice and looking at the context of the time which goes back two or three years now, you know, it was a decision that given that context was a decision that still stands by.
9:44 pm
>> [inaudible] >> apparently there was a contract with mr. clifford which was canceled. >> i don't have knowledge of that. >> it seems strange to me we might come back with details of that. it seems to me that how many and he hasn't considered those under 500,000 or even 200,000 or even 50,000 come he got 20,000, and it seems bizarre someone can have 20,000 somebody else gets the phonak when they get 600,000 or a million. surely you can see that the difference most people draw is
9:45 pm
when it was out in the open and everybody knew about all of these things and the other was paid when it was all try again to be kept rather quiet, 600,000. do you not see the most people looking at that is? >> understand where you are coming from and these are things we are talking about 100,000, 200,000, 600,000, that is a lot of money and you look at that and say why would a company do that? and i would go back to my answer to mr. sanders question which is to be precise about the chronology here and i am not a lawyer, i apologize. i would like to answer this question but my understanding is the 60,000 settlement and the judgment in the moseley case which was after the advice given
9:46 pm
around the tayler settlement is an important chronology and that is now in courts and judges have set a different standard here. what we knew, and what i knew at the time is when we had senior distinguished outside counsel who had drawn to say if the case was litigated and if the company were to lose the case, what sort of damage is what we expect to pay? and the company received an answer that was substantial. >> it was the to hundred 50,000. >> it's important to be clear, mr. davis, i apologize but it is important to be clear the 600,000 or 700,000 included damages, legal fees and destination of what would have cost otherwise because the other side of the negotiation understand so as the damages plus the cost that get used to that number. it is important to be clear
9:47 pm
about that because i agree they are big numbers. >> on the payments that he made to the staff going back to the trial of quiet good men to read quite a good -- clyde goodman was pleading guilty. news international pay clyde goodman's legal fees? >> i want to be clear about the chronologies. i didn't have firsthand knowledge of those times. remember that my involvement is matters that started in 2008 or in 2007. in december i was in my role as the chief executive of the public i wasn't involved in those. >> fi can try to answer the first question first to say that it is customary in certain instances with employees or with
9:48 pm
other litigation's to pay some sort of legal expenses on behalf of those to try to bring all of the evidence to the court and so on and that all been done in accordance with. since any involvement i had any knowledge with accordance with the legal at fisa about what the proper way to do things was. but i can't speak to the 2007 arrangements. i don't have firsthand knowledge. >> clyde goodman employed the services of job kelsey. i don't know if you come across john kelsey. he is one of the most eminent lawyers in the country where one of the most expensive in the country and celebrities. it seems to me a journalist on the news of the world who is pleading guilty here to a crime
9:49 pm
using the mitigation probably the most expensive lawyer in the country which obviously leads most people to suspect the legal fees were not being paid for bye himself but were being paid for news international. now, given that he was pleading guilty to a criminal act, phone hacking which leads to the dismissal, gross misconduct, why on earth was news international even thinking about, even dreaming about paying the legal fees of someone who was engaged in criminal activity? and permitted something that was clearly gross misconduct? >> mr. davies, i don't have any direct knowledge of the specific legal arrangement with mr. goodman in 2007. so i cannot answer that specific question. what i can say is because i asked the question as well more recently than that with respect to who the company pays, but
9:50 pm
contributions to the legal fees do we make, does the company made and so on and so forth, and i think i can tell you that in asking the question, and this is legal counsel, something that it is customary in to sometimes make contributions at a legal cost the fighter in related matters and so on and so forth. i have no direct knowledge of that particular instance that you mentioned, and if you have any additional specific questions about that, perhaps, mr. chairman, we can follow-up with you on that and i am happy to do that. >> it's overwhelming and mean, these are issues that go back some time. i'm surprised you haven't followed up on them already. were any subsequent payments made after that? did news international make any payments at all to those people following their coverage? >> ne, i would like to answer that question. it's a good question and it is a
9:51 pm
specific question. the -- to my knowledge, and asking because there are allegations made that the legal fees have been paid and after those come after that time in 2007 to those i asked the question myself and i was very surprised to find the company had made certain contributions to the legal settlements and i don't have all of the details around each of those. no legal fees are down there and i was just surprised. i was very surprised to find out that that had occurred. they were done as understand in accordance with the legal counsel and with the strong advice. >> who signed off, who signed the checks, who agreed to pay? >> i do not know. >> you talk about the managing editor. you expect the managing editor
9:52 pm
made that. >> it would have been the legal cases i would think, but i think we have to -- you know, i am happy to go back over that but it came to my attention first of all. >> it had anything to do with the managing editors. >> it didn't, both of the managing editor or the labour managing editor. this would have been the legal advice payment that had a handle on the litigation and i don't have direct knowledge of the details on the current status of those but i can tell you i was as surprised as you are to find that some of those arrangements had been made. >> mr. murdoch sr. seems to be getting further. would he have agreed -- >> it could have been. >> would have been or could have been? >> who else could it be?
9:53 pm
>> the chief legal officer without the approval. >> it could be on the instructions of the chief legal officer. >> you said you were not involved in the decision to get rid of tom crone. whose decision was that? >> in the company at the time the chief exit of mr. brooks. the chief executive of the company and the senior personnel. >> he left the data for the day after allegations made originally about phone hacking. was that linked? what happened, how did he leave the company? >> that i don't know. that would have been at a time
9:54 pm
the news of the world better for you to ask him why did he resign? >> he resigned sadly last friday following saying i was in charge of the company during this period stepped out. >> did they ask to leave? >> they both asked to leave. >> why did you not accept the resignation when she first offered it? >> because i believed -- >> why did you the second time
9:55 pm
in? >> in the event she [inaudible] >> can you tell us how much of the characters have been paid off? how much the been given as a financial settlement on the news international? >> in the case it would be considerable to the service 5 million, 10 million? >> as confidential. >> any confidentiality in the pay off they are not supposed to speak of what happened or what they know? >> the summit compromise agreement somebody leaves the
9:56 pm
business in circumstances like this there are some commercial confidentiality but nothing that would stop or inhibit executives from corporate and with investigations are being transparent about any wrongdoing or anything like that and it's important to note that in these agreements they are made on the basis of no evidence in this society and evidence of impropriety emerges or was there prior to that departure than you would have a different piece but there is quite -- that's an important point to be clear about. >> my final point is it seems to me on the basis the news of the world was satisfy sacrificed for rebecca brooks position news international rather than being the having her departure the
9:57 pm
news of the world was offered an alternative to try to deal with the whole thing do you regret now making the decision, do you regret closing the news of the world to try to say rebecca buckson hindsight you wish that you have accepted the resignation to start with an order for that paper in the tradition to continue who are now out of work are trying to find a job or would still be in work. >> i regret very much the people who've not been able to find work. the decisions were unrelated, absolutely and totally unrelated stomachs of the policy was rebecca brooks. >> i'm not sure i did say that. i walked out side [inaudible] i'm not sure what i said. >> i'm not saying that. >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman?
9:58 pm
>> the closure of a newspaper with a history of 160 some odd years, history is something that is a great thing and something that is a serious matter of regret for us for the company but much more serious than that is the seriousness of really a violation of privacy to the cause of the victims of illegal voice manager and their families i advocate the time this was a step we should take this as a beeper and a title that had fundamentally violated the trust of its leaders and something that is a matter of great regret, gravity but under the circumstances and with respect to the bad things in of things
9:59 pm
that happened in the news of the world some years ago. now it is important to note and i want to be clear with the committee on this that the company is doing everything it can to make sure that journalists and staff at the news of the world who have nothing to do with any of these issues who are completely blameless in any of these things and are done tremendous work journalistically, professionally, commercially and in the business would find an employment for them under the circumstances the company is being thoughtful and compassionate for them and their families to get through this, but it is a very regrettable situation and one that we did not take lightly in any way.
10:00 pm
.. i do know that sudden legal fees
10:01 pm
were paid for mr. obamacare, and the company. i was surprised and shocked to learn of that is your. >> was to pay the legal fees of a convicted felon who has been intimately involved? deifies of a corporation. >> i can understand that, and that is is there why i asked the question and is exactly call when the allegations came out, i said how can we -- can we really -- are we doing this? and only do it twice, you know, again, don't want to be legalistic, and am not aware "of this year's litigation's and is important for all the evidence it to court the right time, and the strong advice was that from time to time it is important and customary even to pay codefendant legal fees, and that is -- and after arrest and
10:02 pm
counsel's advice on some of these serious litigation matters >> still conscious beating to his legal fees. >> as i said an earlier, i don't know the precise status of that no, i do know that i asked 45i asked for those things, the company to find a way for those things to cease. >> will you let us know. >> of gabba to follow-up with the committee on the status of those legal fees. >> murdoch's senior, is it not time for your relation to say enough is enough. this man allegedly hacked phones . the time for your or a physician to to say you behavior disgracefully and pay anymore your costs. >> i would like to do that. ito knows status of will we're doing.
10:03 pm
when his contract was another still has a force. >> will you give the instruction of stop? >> provided there is that any breach of a contract to a legal contract oas. >> i want to return to the question of the legal statement say to us live inquiry. the witnesses who came to us testified about being intimately involved in a particular a huge it string of e-mails after the arrival. this is a with the past few days they have been rather quick to try and distance themselves from that investigation, according to their "to the newspapers. so, could i -- stated to us clearly that the investigation covered no new evidence. so mr. murdoch james, can you
10:04 pm
tell about the file of the mills circle to the report that was discovered, lesley and the region's of this paper and the offices of arlington louis? tenuously tomorrow in the was discovered and when you first get to know about it was a light? >> i first came to know what that's early this year in 2011. >> can you speak marsh precise about the time? >> it would have been in the -- era -- it would have been around -- rooted in the springtime. as already ejected. >> before april. >> with in april or may. and i can try to find them reschedules did was a few months ago. and i can speak, i should say. that is bigger little bit to it, but as to the aid to the that was carried out into does a
10:05 pm
seven, again, i pistes this back together from the past. a.m. my involvement, but the company at the time, there was a dismissal, and unfair dismissal case that was brought by mr. goodman, and that was the basis for conducting. it was read of the time of the convictions. >> in our report, despite the assurances. >> well, there was a -- there was a call but it was wait at the time. he came in. the standards had been talked about 04 by the time of the 2007 business was there, and the -- an investigation was done or a fact finding peace around it, and there was an outside counsel but was brought in. it was by the company at the tower, and as i understand tow the legal executives, it was
10:06 pm
mr. chapman at the time along with mr. muller and testified to this effect. it took reports from them : in the opinion was clear that as to their review there was no additional illegality with respect to phone hacking in that file. and as to the opinion that was clear : the company rested on a number of things from then on, and i certainly know in 2009 when the additional allegations came this summer the company rarely arrested. >> move right up today to to what to was discovered in the offices. >> so in 2010, after the civil litigation had put a spotlight are unearthed, if you will, to us, to the company additional, new evidence, new intermission
10:07 pm
that had not been there before. the police investigation started off. one of the things i was with back and looked at, i suppose it was in the spring by senior people at international was that file, and it was reluctant to open up and looked at, and it was very rapidly brought to our attention that this was something. >> when? >> , again, this is between april call may, june, and that's timeframe. >> into looked at this? >> on this side to -- people managing the world on behalf of news international from early this year had been led by mr. lewis. that is correct. >> what is in that file. as has been a report to collection of 300 e-mails. what is this? >> as you know, there's an ongoing criminal investigation, and i think it wouldn't wrong of me to talk about specific of
10:08 pm
racial or evidence that is subject to and could problems where the police entered the apartment were prepared currently doing. >> a reminder. what is is? >> this paper. ami, there are e-mails, documents. >> have you read it all? >> i have not. some things in it have been shown to me. >> what was your reaction? >> i tried not to. good to go with you do? a character out to have on occasion when you do with my reaction was to agree with the recommendation of the agent do is involve which was this was sobbing we should register usage of the police with to respect to their ongoing investigation. >> when was it given to the police.
10:09 pm
>> i leave it was in june after we informed the board of the company awhile. >> so -- >> i will leave it was june tow yes. >> the newspaper. portrait collimated pictures of the tenth of july on the front of this file with the six certainty keepers of the news desk. they named them as alex when chick, greg miscue, goodman, james. do you recognize that from the file that you have to look it? >> respectfully, i would ask you to please understand that c-span questions about any of the evidence, information that we passed the police in relation with there are going crinoline clarice her difficult for me to answer, and i would appreciate if we can't allow the police to
10:10 pm
undergo the important work that they are undergoing. there is a process that is important to. we are cooperating and providing the information on a regular basis commendably that we have to allow the police to conduct their investigation and told the people he did wrong to accounts in this area. >> comment on the anything now that ticket results jack. >> i will respect that. >> i will turn to to the follow the letter -- provided to us by
10:11 pm
rebecca brooks -- rebekah brooks as evidence that this the milk produced nothing more. that is, that's weather from lawrence every. a partner of hall lewis missing with the mills. and then send your client, neil, and there's less and it comes to light. that contradicted the letter report. >> knowing what you know no how do you look back at this in detail the dates on which end why they gave him such a clean bill of health.
10:12 pm
>> cola can say is that having directed -- having looked at some of the things in that and the advice of the senior people inside, the company more recently that when the looked at that, a few of the company's, it was right to bring this to the attention of the police and go forward, and that opinion from the council was something that the company, you know, rests upon. it was the clear opinion of what review done around those records , and in addition, in conjunction with the police continuing to say that there was no new of a sense and no reason to open a new investigation, and in conjunction with the pcs he saying he had done their review and the inquiry in there was nothing new, it was view that was a settled matter. it was only really when new evidence emerged that those things began to be undermined.
10:13 pm
>> could you just provide us with the instructions, the extent of the intervention that was given some and italia affirmation that was available, thus ordered the tell? >> i think additional detail required for legal instructions we will consult and come back to the chairman with a way to satisfy you with afro-asian. >> clearly in the our report that this review : is not so what's with his arrival, with the timing of these loans, actions that beg the question of why the individuals that the names, these six individuals. >> i don't know. i think it was to file was not there at the time, and i cannot
10:14 pm
tell you the circumstances where conversations that people had were the terms of reference of that, but it was viewed the dow was something that would be -- it had been reviewed after the fact that that would, you know, had been a thorough look at information based on that review . >> to one who immediately jumps out. >> again, in hindsight you can say, we can all say that simply looked at this warm sunday have known something bill was not known yet at the time, but i cannot comment on why the scope was what it was. >> the proceedings for unfair dismissal of the was tending the criminal convictions clearly never saw light of day. "therefore, we don't know what their plea to serve. the validation check i can only
10:15 pm
imagine that there were saying such and such a person knew. >> and pete many of these individuals you mentioned are currently subject to criminal investigations, some have been arrested recently, and these are important matters for the police now, and i do think it is important to that i don't stray into or not lead into commenting specifically about individuals or allegations made in the past. >> with the uses for yourself as to what clive goodman were alleging in discussion with the negotiation -- >> at the what they were alleging, what have you says larger self -- >> i'm not aware of the allegations at the time and other things. as to given, this was 2007 before i was there.
10:16 pm
it is my understanding that is one that there were hoping to deal with, and that opinion did says for the company and its time, and the company rested on that opinion. protect a tickets you would like to withdraw this matter was what really went on at news of the world. >> is that tiara the discipline that actually, you i will let you last because he is the key is also legal advice from senior counsel those provided that the company rested on : i think it goes some distance in explaining why he has taken a long time for new information. and there was say, i think it is important. it was one of the basis for the prospect that the company made against the new allegations. it was one of the pillars of the environment that led the companies to believe that all of
10:17 pm
these these were a matter of the pass and the new allegations -- >> the question of kuwait income was different. i ask you about this like to have this letter. what is the reason for the investigation day with george? >> respectfully to lie about where of legal technicalities of withdrawing that or somebody on the record. at the gate is a relevant documents and trying to understand how these -- >> you will us your question. >> would say no, but lacking come back and see if it is better idea. >> i have a few more questions. as you have described did, and the e-mails investigation carried out by he i t departments was overseen by the direction of legal fairness
10:18 pm
toward john chapman and directed a new clerk. is that your understanding? >> pardon me kamal was the question? is it my understanding that -- >> you and : describe that it was carried out by the right to department and overseen by legal firms, chapman and the human resources director, personnel director. >> that is my understanding. >> okay. can he tell us why john chapman left the organization? >> they decided that it was in mutual interest to part ways, and that the key, you know, i take one of the pieces here as well is that the company is move forward to. and i think this is important. many of the individuals, even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing or anything like that
10:19 pm
, and no evidence of an bryan veto many individuals have chosen that is assigned to our ways. i was not involved in discussions with mr. chapman. >> covering up the existence. >> i do not. >> can you tell us about dana clark. >> i don't know. he is out in the business he was the director of human resources for a number of years. not that many. actually, not sure. but over a year ago i think, but i can't follow up with you the status. >> okay. very quickly. and, again, the file that you discovered this year, regarding that incident, when did you first become aware of this collection of files?
10:20 pm
they clearly rated device. >> i can speak to mr. henson's knowledge. you're referring to in 2011? >> this document that was left -- >> in 2007. i can see, i can speak to his knowledge, but i would -- i know that he was clear of the work that i've been carried out and does testify to this committee to that effect. >> heavy as to whether he knew what this document? >> no. >> why not? >> a document discovered in april or may. >> i don't think it is still you know, i have not asked to go
10:21 pm
about i also plead that he has testified to this that he, as the chief executive would not have been expected to unnecessarily to want to read its hundreds of thousands of e-mails. there would have to rely on the opinion of counsel about what they had done. >> and was : my love aware of this? >> i guess because other individual's knowledge in the past. i simply, can't speak for them. >> stuart kaufman. >> the same goes. i can't speak for them. i simply cannot speak for them. when she was chief executive, people do brought it to my attention as anything. >> just with this question.
10:22 pm
and just going to wrap up. we're left with a situation where you, having looked into this matter, having cooperated with the police cannot tell us who watched the file, who was aware of its contents, and to cap you from being in the full possession of the facts to what evidence is clearly not been submitted to the police but kutcher takes all of the assurance that you gave not one but into commission inquiries. >> i can say that the company, at the time, in days to an outside law firm to review a number of these e-mails that were provided to the law firm, and this tended to reviewed and amended opinion was issued to the company about the issue.
10:23 pm
the company rested on that. i cannot speak to individual knowledge of different times. i simply don't know. where i do know is that the company rested on that, rich and the fact that the police told us there was no new evidence and the reason for a new investigation him rest of the opinion of the pc see, that there was no new information and no reason to carry it further if. it was not until new evidence emerged from the civil litigation is going on that the company if immediately went to the police to restarted this, and the company has to the right thing. >> in your lawyer's position all the time mr. marek senior. >> well with a test, i'm sorry, mr. farley, it was looked at in
10:24 pm
conjunction with the and newest restarted criminal investigation. these are serious matters commander take them seriously. three look at those it was looked at indian that these things would be of interest to the police , we brought an additional council, mark mcdonald the right thing mr. farley mention earlier, and they helped devise the company with the appropriate weight forward in cooperation death police investigation. very serious matters, and the company took them very seriously >> to questions. the situation that arises painted. we are no here. not knowing who was news international, news of the world was the implicit in keeping that file containing over many bits of paper with no where near knowing who knew what or when
10:25 pm
about the file. evidence that clearly contradicts not only the statements, but evidence as it would appear that place your closest and trusted aide to give misleading evidence. the find that satisfactory? >> no, i do not. >> and what should the company's you about it in a follow-up? >> well, mr. chapman is in charge of this and has left us. he had that report during those years. until mr. lewis -- we immediately said with the zeal of licensee how to get to the police with this, how we should presented.
10:26 pm
>> the file is with the lawyers and the law firm and there was a reason to go real look at it. the opinion was very, very clear based upon the review that was done. as soon as it was -- in a new negro investigation it was inappropriate to look at and immediately done. >> we never hear you say. my final question, given the picture that has been paid to the individuals in the common newsdesk with the private investigator, to you to give possible that they would not have known about these nativities? is that possible? >> i can't say that because of police inquiries. i mean, judicial proceedings.
10:27 pm
that's all i can tell you, except it was my understanding -- a better not say it. mr. miler was appointed by mr. handler to find out what the hell was to weigh on. he commissioned the that inquiry. now, that is much in the standing of it. i cannot swear to the accuracy of it. >> we agree to break of roughly because we have been going for two hours now. >> to james murdoch, who would like to know, the news text -- newsdesk and engineering. could you try and pay to picture
10:28 pm
of the week celebration? what days were you involved? >> my involvement was initially overseeing the region of europe and asia with three clear in 2008 and in december 2007 and was to visit before european coming asian television business and there you kate parr was in business, one title of which is the news of the world. vacancy was originally involved. >> was came to you? the advertising income. week by week. with tiptoes. and when you would -- >> i don't think this.
10:29 pm
every, these aren't surprises, sales and advertising figures and personal numbers and all of those things. relevance in managers look at those hearings. >> of leaks are with the question that has been answered already. the settlement of a claimant. that is taken outside of the day-to-day moneys of the newspaper. >> eased 55 each -- each -- each group of companies are entitled to have their own the executives who will deal with things like libel and other things that will turn to check the solyndra is not going to the paper is going to be wrong. sometimes it is right and sometimes it is wrong, but has its own legal resource. counsel's office in the newspapers. >> so the editor --
10:30 pm
>> my son several week, a day in munich or a day in in sky italian. ..
10:31 pm
>> are there no rules that certain things have to be? it sounds like -- >> it is left. >> may i just? >> i think it's important to know the difference between captain the dark and the large company the management of which is delegated to the managers of a different company within the group and so on and so forth, and i think as you suggest that my father or myself kept in the dark is a different thing than saying the manager running these businesses is often delegated either to the chief executive of a different company or an editor or managing editor or editorial floor and decision making has to do that there are thresholds of materiality if he will wear white things have to move upstream so it has to be brought to the attention from a
10:32 pm
financial threshold point of view i think we addressed that earlier with respect to the settlement, out-of-court settlement with mr. taylor. but also from the standpoint of things like alleged criminality and violations of our own code of conduct, things like that. those are things that the company's internal audit function as well as the audit committee as well as the senior executive of the committee are expected to be made aware of coming and as they were in the case of the criminal prosecutions in 2007. >> whatever efforts were made, we have reached the crisis and the news of the world wouldn't have been closed. who were these responsible for that failure? >> you are saying people should have told you but you say just
10:33 pm
now not that they should have told you but bet on the money here. >> it's a good question but it's not to say that -- i am not saying somebody should have. to my knowledge, certain things were not known. and when new information came to light in respect to my knowledge of these events and the understanding of new information came to light the company acted on that in the right and proper way as best the company could come and it's difficult to say that somebody should have been told it was unknown fact to be told. now, i've been asked today what other people know and i can only pressed on what they told they told me or what they told in previous hearings and i understand completely your frustration about this. can imagine my own frustration
10:34 pm
in 2010 when the civil litigation came to the point where these things were out and suddenly realize that actually the denial of the veracity of allegations that have been made earlier particularly in 20,009th had been too strong and it's a matter of real regret. all the facts were not known and that is a matter of deep regret and it is why we are here today with you trying to be as transparent as we possibly can. >> this is a return question i'm sure your answer will be. the fact is the employees become friends over the years and stand up with his determination to
10:35 pm
look after, so it's admirable but at one point in the time the ability in the financial press that it was nepotism but in retrospect do you regret it has become? >> [inaudible] including my son passed all sorts of committees but outside express some who made the
10:36 pm
conclusion that he was the right person. when he left to take charge in the possibilities we get calls in from the shareholders saying it was a terrible thing to take away because he had done such a great job. do you not think that was made more likely because the history and people won't elect members that became friends and? you don't think that's so? >> why don't think they misled
10:37 pm
me for a minute to make your own conclusion. he certainly did not know of any. >> there are two more members. >> thank you. the declaration of my own to the committee has been engaged by the news corporation that has done work with the information leading up to it. you said we live in a transparent society. do you think people can expect to will privacy on that? >> no. >> where do the looks of that line in the investigation for example personal banking and phone records were used for the
10:38 pm
witnesses on the investigations so to what extent do you think the use of the presidential private information even phone records and phone hacking is permissible in the news story? >> i think investigative journalists particularly competitive does lead to a more transparent and open society and convenient as that may be too many people and we are a better society because of it and i think we are probably more than even the united states. >> where do you draw the line on that? for their boundaries? >> there was a turnabout cry. >> sorry to say this, and i know the circumstances but when the
10:39 pm
daily fought a series of documents of all the expenses caused a huge outcry one of which i feel montespan properly addressed in a look at them as open and clear society of the world where every minute they get there's no temptation in the society. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> it is ridiculous to reduce. >> i think it is a really important question, and i
10:40 pm
understand it has been one on the subject of the judicial inquiry which the prime minister announced last week which as a company we immediately welcome and look forward to. the question of public interest, the question of what's acceptable and what is and in terms of investigative techniques is an important one but let me be very clear because of the conduct of the news corporation globally for our employees, journalists were otherwise are very clear that breaking the law is a very serious matter and should be people who are lawbreakers should be held to account and in a matter of something like phone hacking or payments to police and things like that we just don't think they should have anyplace in our business to reduce indexing would be very clear within your organization aware that phone hacking was not only equal but totally unacceptable? >> and i think after the -- particularly in light of the successful prosecutions and convictions of the individuals
10:41 pm
involved in 2007 could not be taken more seriously and if new evidence emerges, and has it has in cases, the company acts on it very, very quickly. >> do you think you have a problem in your organization where people will only tell you things they think you want to hear and these are people that have been more trusted advisers simply [inaudible] >> no, not myself adviser, certainly. he should hear the conversations in my office that are coming in all the time. >> we are a very big company. i'm sure there may be people that try to please me. that could be human nature and it is up to me to see through
10:42 pm
that. >> can you get to each other with an organization that leads them to take risks and clearly in the case of news of the world push the boundaries of the law? >> say that again, i'm sorry. >> is there pressure on editors in the newspapers to take risks and break boundaries where the news of the world action of wrongdoing in order to get the news? >> a think it is terribly wrong. there was no braking velo anytime. for this person when they wish to campaign for change but never to break i would just say -- i
10:43 pm
just want to say brought up by a father who was not rich but was a greek journalist, and he just before he died wrote a small paper specifically but didn't give the chance to do good, and what he was most proud of and hated by many people for many years which was the scandal which i remain very very proud of. i would love to see my sons and daughters follow if they are interested.
10:44 pm
>> musette later on you have had frequent meetings with the prime ministers during your career. in the period after the arrest -- >> i wish they would leave me alone you said early on that you were aware of the situation and you were aware of the case in that stage. in the years after that in the reports and investigations in the committee heard a lot about mr. de did any senior politicians you were in contact with at that time raised concerns about phone hacking? >> the person i met with most of those days with mr. brown when he was the chancellor. our children played together on many occasions and i'm very sorry that i'm no longer. i thought he had agreed values which shared with him and i am sorry that we have come apart
10:45 pm
and i hope one day we will be able to put it together again. >> you said you go to "the wall street journal" you thought your executives and the phone corporation were very well which was a minor stakes. do you stand by that statement or do you believe the level of mistakes? >> they seem to read now. the top of him and the crisis in -- [laughter] i don't believe that either he made any great mistakes but were mistakes made? absolutely. people like trusten or they
10:46 pm
trusted or felt they betrayed, yes. >> according to james murdoch is disappointed when rebekah brooks said in the time like the paper had to close and will wish to comment in saying that what do you think it was the significance and that period do they seem to be more revelations that will come out? >> i can't speak to what she's specifically referring to. she made those comments herself, and when she was saying goodbye to the staff, but i can say that, you know, what happened at the news of the world and in the events leading up to the 2007 affairs and prosecutions and
10:47 pm
what we know about those things now more bad and they were things that should not have anyplace in an organization. they are things we unreservedly and really sincerely are sorry for. we haven't seen the end of this in terms of the ongoing police investigations that are there. as you know, mr. collins, there are a number of people that have been arrested. we don't know what is going to happen in the future around those things. but given the breach of trust, given the allegations but were emerging at a rapid pace, you know, it was clear to me any way, and i think that the future will bear this out without any specific knowledge of the future obviously that it was the right thing for the paper to cease publication. >> he acted as fast as he could the moment he could.
10:48 pm
does that suggest you were held back at any point in the process in the last few weeks? >> to the committee earlier i can't remember which member, my apologies, but mr. collins there has been a frustrating process and actually my frustration - my real danger to learn that there was new evidence emerging as leaders the end of 2010 was real and is real and what i've done and with the company has tried to do is take new information, of just the course, beef with propriety, beef quickly, the hate in a humble way with respect to what happened and in which respect to trying to put it right. and that is what we are trying to do. it was enormously frustrating and that doesn't mean i have any knowledge of anyone intentionally misleading the in the company. i don't. which makes it doubly frustrating. but, it is -- we are where we
10:49 pm
are. new information emerged for through the legitimate due process of the trial. the company acted on it as fast as could be expected and still no information or new allegations are emerging that, you know, the company and we are trying to deal with us right away as we can and in the best way possible. >> i have a very specific question i would like to ask you. starting with you, mr. james murdoch, i've written over a plank of the difference in the settlement so and the other settlements. can you just tell me whether or not the government included the confidentiality clause and the others did not?
10:50 pm
>> at this stage but if you have been cooperative and you have answered questions for a long time so i would like to apologize on behalf of the committee and parliament for the way that you have been treated and we will make a report to the speaker on the assure you we will take action to find out how that was able to over. that was extremely good of you to agree to continue this session and to allow my colleague to finish her questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i want to start by saying when discussing your initial appearance you have leadership to show up in the answer questions and it shows immense that's that you continue on with your questions now on the circumstances noted and i think you for it.
10:51 pm
my questions will be just as tough as they would have been unfortunately had that not occurred. so if i can just take you back before we were briefly interrupted to the settlements. can you please tell me whether or not the settlement to your knowledge involves a confidentiality clause that wasn't present in the settlement in the months? >> i can't tell you that the settlement was a confidential settlement. and as to other settlements post that and more recent settlements some have been confidential. i believe some -- i don't believe any have been confidential settlements, but i can certainly follow-up as to whether or not there have been any. it's customary to an out-of-court settlement for both parties to agree there is nothing unusual about that be out of court settlement being made confidential, but it was and with respect to the question
10:52 pm
that is the disparity and the amount of money involved and there was nothing in the tayler settlement with respect to confidentiality that spoke to the amount of money. the amount of money that is derived as i testified earlier from a judgment made about the likely damages would be and the likely expenses in the litigation costs would have been had the company taken the litigation to estimate yet been very thorough about that. that is your explanation for the settlement three it was noted it could be drawn of the larger settlements could say the confidentiality clause did not and despite what you say about it being a pragmatic decision on the cost to the company and it could be drawn by the presence of the confidentiality clause. >> okay. fair enough. many people find it quite hard
10:53 pm
to believe to executives nobody would regard as passive have such little knowledge of the widespread illegalities on of your flagship paper's can i ask you very specifically mr. james murdock, first, when did you become aware that it's not really a celebrity some but victims of crime had been had when did you become aware so involved? >> the trouble instance of the deception around the case only came to my attention when it was reported in the press a few weeks ago. it was total shock was the first i heard of it and had become aware of it. >> was that the same hacking of
10:54 pm
other victims? have you in other words been made aware prior to the story breaking that your reporter stepped into the phones of any other crime victims? >> i am not familiar. i haven't been made aware of that. >> just for the record will be aware it is a very lively interest. the acts are currently alleged the phone on the u.s. soil deutsch and the delegation was absolutely confident that no employee or contractor of news corporation or any of its properties hacked the phones of 9/11 victims or their families? >> we have no evidence of that at all. >> i was just going to say -- sorry, i was just going to say those are incredibly serious allegations and they come to light fairly recently. we do not know that the veracity
10:55 pm
of those obligations and are trying to understand precisely what they are and any investigations i was and i remember well as all of us do that september 11 attacks and i was in the far east living there at the time and it is just appalling to think that anyone associated with one of our papers would have done something like that. i'm aware of no evidence about that. i'm well aware of the obligation and will eagerly cooperate with any investigation or try to find out what went on at that time. this is very new allegations, just a few days old i think but there are very serious allegations and that sort of activity would have absolutely no place. it would just be appalling. >> the information provided to do so far, i notice that your answer mr. james murdock was somewhat more nuanced.
10:56 pm
have you received any information that gives you cause or concern that the employees of news corporation were contractors may have indulged in that? >> no. to only seen the allegations that have been made in the press i think it was something like that and we are actively chongging -- we would like to know the allegations are and understand, you know, anything about them. >> any reports that any employee's report had been? >> absolutely not. >> how do you as a result shock for corporate culture have you heard from any of your employees and papers of other countries that phone hacking or practices we have been happening in those in the australian properties or any others when news corporation owns media properties? are you doing global reuse and have you heard of any phone hacking in northern territories? >> i am not aware of any
10:57 pm
obligations and any. i haven't heard of those obligations. but i would go back to the code of ethics and the code of conduct that all of our colleagues at the news corporation's global become another journalist or management are required to have when they joined the company and were briefed on those things that is a matter of real seriousness. the journalistic ethics of any of the newspapers or television channels within the group, and certainly it is something that on the basis we want to be consistent, we want to be doing the right thing. and when i say that illegal behavior has no place in this company, that goes to the whole company. >> mr. rupert murdoch you were the chairman of the chief executive of news corporation. you are ahead of the global company the review. given these allegations that you extend indeed when you open the settlement use it was the least
10:58 pm
[inaudible] given -- i'm sorry, humble. that is a mystique. the most humble day of your life you feel humbled by these events you are ultimately in charge of the company. given your shock and these things being made and the fact you didn't know anything about them have instructed your editors around the world to engage in the review of the newsrooms to be sure of other news corporation cases around the globe and if not will you do so? >> no but i am more than prepared to do so. >> thank you. one final question or two final questions. the first is you touched earlier, mr. james murdock, very briefly you touched on the general culture of the phone hacking and the legal practices and that is what has happened in this country. if i could put a couple of things to you. pierce morgan, who is now a
10:59 pm
celebrity ander of cnn with any questions of all phone hacking. he said in his book recently, and i quote, the little truth of entering the standard code allowed anyone to call a number of messages in that book he boasted using that little trick enabled him to the story and the former editor been very open about his personal views of phone hacking. yesterday the parliament -- i'm sorry? under the former is of the world when you were the editor of the daily mirror. the associated newspapers said to the committee of parliament in my view that the daily mail has never in its history run a story based on phone hacking in any way it the obligat

Tonight From Washington
CSPAN December 19, 2011 8:30pm-11:00pm EST

News/Business. News.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 17, Rebecca Brooks 6, Mr. Murdoch 5, Clyde Goodman 5, Mr. James Murdock 4, Europe 4, Mr. Goodman 4, Mr. Sanders 4, Mr. Taylor 4, John Chapman 3, Tayler 2, Mr. Lewis 2, Mr. Watson 2, Mrs. Brooks 2, Mr. James Murdoch 2, Mr. Collins 2, Mr. Farley 2, Gordon Taylor 2, Mr. Chapman 2, Rebekah Brooks 2
Network CSPAN
Duration 02:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 100 (651 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 12/20/2011